Critical Thinking Paper: Genetically Modified Organisms

Mariko Yatsuhashi

CAP 9

May 14, 2017

 According to the USDA, 89 percent of the corn grown in the United States, a crop that

covers 90 million acres of land, is genetically modified. Since the creation of the first genetically

modified organism (GMO) in 1973, GMO usage has expanded and become deeply rooted in

farms across the nation (Wechsler). There are several major problems that have arisen alongside

the widespread use of GMOs. Plants that are genetically modified to be resistant to herbicide are

found to make surrounding weeds more powerful. The powerful companies that produce GMO

products are monopolizing the seed industry and damaging small farms. GMOs also hurt

biodiversity due to a decrease in natural selection and unwanted cross-pollination. The United

States Department of Agriculture must promote the use of crop rotation and alternate weed

management strategies, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division must reopen its

investigation of the seed industry, and the USDA must also create isolated non-GMO farms and

regulations on the separation of GMO and non-GMO farms because the use of genetically

modified organisms in agriculture creates harmful herbicide resistant weeds, allows for an unjust

monopoly over the seed industry by GMO producing companies, and threatens biodiversity due

to cross-pollination and a lack of natural selection.

In 1996, Monsanto Company released its first line of Roundup Ready crops. These

plants were resistant to the companys blockbuster glyphosate herbicide, also known as

Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the weed killer on their fields without the risk of damaging

their crops. The product has become commonplace, as glyphosate-resistant varieties were

grown on approximately 93 percent of soybean acres, 78 percent of upland cotton acres, and 70

percent of corn acres in the United States in the year 2010 (United States, Congress, House...).

Despite seeming to benefit farmers by reducing the labor involved with weed management,
Roundup Ready crops have created an immense problem. As farmers began using only Roundup

herbicide, the weeds in their fields rapidly became resistant to the product. By 2000, just four

years after the release of the product, marestail...was the first glyphosate-resistant weed to be

confirmed in an [herbicide resistant] cropping system (National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine). Farmers growing Roundup Ready plants often choose only to use

Roundup product in their fields, creating a monoculture where weeds only have to adapt a

resistance to one type of herbicide. Now there are at least eighteen confirmed species of

herbicide resistant plants in the world, as compared to the two that existed in 1996 (United

States, Congress, House...). An example of these plants is Palmer amaranth, a weed that reaches

eight feet in height and develops a tough stem that can damage farm machinery and must

sometimes be removed by handan expensive proposition (Mellon). Roundup Ready

genetically engineered crops have led to a dramatic increase in herbicide resistant weeds due to

the monoculture they promote.

Farmers need a way to combat the growing issue of herbicide resistant weeds. Their

current approach, however, is simply to spray the weeds with additional herbicides. The result is

a vicious cycle where the strength of weeds increases alongside the strength and quantity of the

chemicals farmers use to kill them. Companies such as Monsanto are responding to the problem

by simply producing new varieties of herbicide for farmers to use. On the companys website, it

is suggested that farmers facing this problem pre-treat fields with a pre-emergence residual

product and then use products containing the chemicals 2,4-D or dicamba, which are considered

toxic, if the weeds persist (Monsanto Sales Representatives and Agronomists...). This solution

worsens the situation by adding more harmful chemicals to the mix (Mellon). The number of
herbicide resistant weeds will continue to grow as long as farmers rely on a few herbicides to

manage them.

As a solution, the USDA should promote the use of crop rotation and alternate weed

management methods. Crop rotation would help because using herbicide products with different

modes of action over the course of several years can lead to better overall weed control and

minimize the risk of developing weed resistance ("The Benefits of Crop Rotation"). The

rotation of crops breaks up monocultures that cause herbicide resistant weeds. There are also

other methods for destroying weeds that farmers can use along with the spraying of herbicide.

This includes the use of cover crops and mulches... and taking advantage of the

weed-suppressive chemicals produced by some crops and crop varieties (Mellon) Using several

different tactics to combat weeds can help deter the growth of herbicide resistant weeds, as it

creates variety. Despite causing the weed problem, GMO crops still have some positive effects

on the environment, the most beneficial being reduced soil erosion. If farmers use crop rotation

and multiple weed management techniques, these benefits can be unlocked without the concern

of herbicide resistant weeds.

The success of genetically modified (GM), crops has given power over the seed industry

to a small number of agrochemical companies, creating a monopoly that hurts small farms and

does little to support food security. Five of these companies; Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow,

and Bayer, account for 58 percent of seed sales in the world (Freese). These companies have

spent billions of dollars purchasing at least 200 independent seed companies...from 1996-2009

(Freese). This consolidation of power allows these companies to steadily increase the prices of

their seeds. Since 1995, there has been a 325% price increase for soybeans, 259% increase for
corn, and a 516% increase for cotton (Freese). With few other provider options and their

dependency on GM crops, farmers can do little to stop this rapid growth of prices. These high

prices also work against the potential benefits GM crops have for food security. It is harder for

small farmers in developing countries to adopt GMO farming when the seeds are difficult to

afford (Folger). The seed monopoly reduces the positive effects of GM crops.

Monsanto also upholds strong patents over all of its research and products. Its

competitors are sued for millions of dollars over alleged patent violations (Federal Circuit

Court). As a result, few companies are able to develop their own variations of GM crops or

conduct research in the field, which further consolidates power in the seed industry. In addition,

these patents put farmers at risk of being sued. One requirement of the patents is that farmers

purchase new seeds every planting season, rather than recycle the seeds from their last harvest as

is done traditionally. In 2012, Monsanto sued Vernon Bowman, an Indiana soybean farmer, for

$84,000 claiming that he violated this term. The case made its way to the Supreme Court where

the ruling was against Bowman, further enforcing Monsantos patent power and establishing a

precedent for similar cases in the future (Supreme Court). Due to patents and consolidation,

companies such as Monsanto have established a dominance over their industry.

In 2009, the American Antitrust Institute published a paper that discusses the

consolidation of power in the seed industry. In response, the United States Department of Justice

opened an investigation of the industry, specifically the actions of the Monsanto Company. In

2012, it quietly dropped the investigation with no public statement on the case or explanation of

what it uncovered ("Lack of Transparency in the Closing of DOJ's Investigation into Monsanto's

Transgenic Seed Practices Disappoints Antitrust Advocates."). The Department of Justice should
reopen the case, this time with more transparency and communication with the public. On top of

this, organizations such as the American Antitrust Institute should continue publicizing the issues

with the seed industry and petition for stronger antitrust laws. To reduce the control that GMO

companies have over the seed industry, the public must be made more aware of the issue.

Genetically modified crops threaten crop diversity by hindering natural selection and by

invading surrounding plants. The traditional form of farming involves saving the best seeds from

a previous harvest to plant in the next one. This process ensures that the next harvest will consist

of strong, genetically diverse crops ("Preserving Seed Diversity"). Farmers who grow GM crops,

however, are not allowed to use this system because of the patents on the seeds they use

(Supreme Court). The basic, natural selection of the best seeds is therefore bypassed, leaving

farmers with less genetically diverse crops. Genetic diversity is important because increased

variability in DNA will provide a better opportunity for organisms to adapt to a changing

environment (Landry). Plants with diverse genes offer greater defenses against vulnerability

and enhance harvest security in the midst of diseases, pests, droughts, and other stresses

(Altieri). As the genetic diversity of seeds decreases, so does their adaptability and ability to

survive. GMOs are threatening the diversity of seeds, something that is essential to food

security.

The cross-pollination of GM crops with surrounding plants reduces the diversity of crops

and creates problems for farmers. There is an abundance of cases where GM crops have

cross-pollinated with both with wild plants and those in neighboring farms. One example is when

hybrids between the GE creeping bentgrass and wild and naturalized compatible species were

identified outside cultivation in Malheur County, Oregon. This variation of the natural grass is
expected to remain in the environment and has spread over hundreds of kilometers (National

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). Other cases of cross pollination include

papayas in Hawaii, corn in Mexico, and canola in North Dakota (Crossfield). This spreading of

GM genes to non-GM plants creates an enormous issue for organic and non-GMO farms. It is

nearly impossible to prevent the contamination of of these farms by neighboring GM crops.

When this occurs, farmers can lose their organic certifications as well as customers who reject

foods containing GMOs. Albert Straus, an organic dairy farmer explains how if the organic

feed supply for dairy cattle is contaminated with GMOs, farmers will no longer be able to offer

truly organic milk to consumers, and everything we have worked to build will be compromised

(Crossfield). As GM crops spread to other farms, it is the organic or non-GMO farm that must

deal with the consequences. The reduction of diversity within crops is damaging to both food

security and to organic and non-GMO farmers.

To protect the diversity of seeds and crops, the USDA should enact regulations focused

on keeping GMO and non-GMO farms separated and create farms isolated from GMOs. One of

these regulations could be to have a buffer zone between GM and non-GM crops (Nielson). The

department should also create farms that are geographically isolated from any possibility of

cross fertilization or genetic pollution from uniform transgenic crops (Altieri). This will ensure

the existence of crops completely free from genetically modified DNA. Using these strategies,

the biodiversity of crops can be protected.

GMOs have been promoted as a way to make weed management simpler, as beneficial

to small farms, and as a positive influence on the environment. In reality, the complex issue of

herbicide resistant weeds is making killing weeds more difficult, dominant companies are
hitching up prices and attacking small farmers, and GM crops are contaminating other plants and

weakening the evolution of seeds. A tremendous effort from the government, cooperation from

the seed industry, and a greater awareness among the public are necessary before GMOs can

truly become a positive influence.

 Works Cited

Altieri, Miguel A. "Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty." Monthly Review, vol. 61,

no. 3, http://monthlyreview.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Crossfield, Paula. "Genetically Engineered Foods Threaten to Contaminate Organic Food."

Genetically Engineered Foods, edited by Debra A. Miller, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At

Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://galegroup.com. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Federal Circuit Court. Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. Du Pont

de Nemours and Company and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

www.americanbar.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Folger, Tim. "The Next Green Revolution." National Geographic Magazine,

www.nationalgeographic.com. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Freese, Bill, and George Kimbell. Seed Giants vs US Farmers. Center for Food Safety,

www.centerforfoodsafety.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017

"Lack of Transparency in the Closing of DOJ's Investigation into Monsanto's Transgenic Seed

Practices Disappoints Antitrust Advocates." American Antitrust Institute, 21 Nov. 2012,

www.antitrustinstitute.org. Accessed 14 May 2017.

Landry, Heather. "Challenging Evolution: How GMOs Can Influence Genetic Diversity."

Science in the News, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Aug.

2015, sitn.hms.harvard.edu. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Mellon, Margaret, and Doug Gurian-Sherman. The Rise of Superweeds and What to Do about

It. Union of Concerned Scientists, Dec. 2013, www.ucsusa.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Monsanto Sales Representatives and Agronomists Prepared to Address Grower Concerns about
 Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed." Monsanto, 22 Dec. 2006, news.monsanto.com.

Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops:

Experiences and Prospects. National Academies Press, 2016.

Nielson, Robert. "Minimizing Pollen Drift & Commingling of GMO and Non-GMO Corn

Grain."Corny News Network, www.agry.purdue.edu. Accessed 14 May 2017.

"Preserving Seed Diversity." Food Security, Calumet Quarter, http://foodsecurity.uchicago.edu.

Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Rangel, Gabriel. "From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO

Technology." Science in the News, Harvard University Graduate School of

Arts and Sciences, Aug. 2015, sitn.hms.harvard.edu. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Supreme Court. Monsanto v. Bowman. www.supremecourt.gov. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

"The Benefits of Crop Rotation." Knowledge Spotlight, www.sandsofiowa.com. Accessed 14

May 2017.

United States, Congress, House, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee

on Domestic Policy. Herbicide-Resistant Weeds in Genetically Engineered Crops.

Testimony of Micheal D.K. Owen Ph.D., Professor of Agronomy, Iowa State University,

Government Printing Office, 2010. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine, http://nationalacademies.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Wechsler, Seth J. "Recent Trends in GE Adoption." United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 3 Nov. 2016,

www.ers.usda.gov. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

 Annotated Bibliography

Altieri, Miguel A. Agroecology, Small Farms, and Food Sovereignty. Monthly Review, vol. 61,

no. 3, monthlyreview.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This secondary source is reliable as it

was written by a professor of agro-ecology at the University of California at Berkeley. It

describes the potential problems that could arise with the cross pollination of GMO crops

with non-GMO crops. It also offers solutions, one of which I suggested in my paper.

Crossfield, Paula. Genetically Engineered Foods Threaten to Contaminate Organic Food.

Genetically Engineered Foods, edited by Debra A. Miller, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At

Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, https://galegroup.com. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

Originally published as GM and Organic Co-Existence: Why We Really Just Cant Get

Along,, 9 Feb. 2011. This secondary source described the results of the spread of

GMOs through interviews with farmers and facts. I also used it as a tertiary source by

including part of one interview with a farmer in my paper.

Drought and Superbugs Devastate U.S. Corn Crop. The New American, vol. 28, no. 18, 24

Sept. 2012, p. 7. Opposing Viewpoints in Context,

link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A305084445/OVIC?u=mcps_blair&xid=4130492f.

Accessed 12 Feb. 2017. This secondary source detailed some of the specific problems

caused by GMOs. This helped me come up with my main argument of a loss of

biodiversity caused by GE crops.

Folger, Tim. The Next Green Revolution. National Geographic Magazine,

www.nationalgeographic.com. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This secondary source is published

by National Geographic magazine meaning it is trust worthy. It has an interesting

 perspective on GMOs and their role in advancing food security that applies to my

arguments about the consolidation of power in the seed industry.

Freese, Bill, and George Kimbell. Seed Giants vs US Farmers. Center for Food Safety,

www.centerforfoodsafety.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This secondary source offers a

detailed look at the monopoly of the seed industry, or my second argument. It gave me

facts and information that I used to back up my claims and is from a reliable

organization.

Genetically Modified Food. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Detroit, Gale, 2016.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context,

link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999249/OVIC?u=mcps_blair&xid=a677fa3f.

Accessed 6 Feb. 2017. This secondary source details all of the varying perspective on

GMOs and describes the factual evidence behind each. It helped me become educated on

the topic on a whole rather than just the parts that supported my thesis. I found it in a

reliable database.

"Lack of Transparency in the Closing of DOJ's Investigation into Monsanto's Transgenic Seed

Practices Disappoints Antitrust Advocates." American Antitrust Institute, 21 Nov. 2012,

www.antitrustinstitute.org. Accessed 14 May 2017. This informative secondary source

describes the events around the antitrust investigation of the seed industry.

Landry, Heather. Challenging Evolution: How GMOs Can Influence Genetic Diversity.

Science in the News, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Aug.

2015, sitn.hms.harvard.edu. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This secondary source provided me

with information about the effects of GMOs on biodiversity, the topic for my third
 argument It was very helpful and had some important information that I used in my

essay. It is reliable as it is published by Harvard University.

Mellon, Margaret, and Doug Gurian-Sherman. The Rise of Superweeds and What to Do about

It. Union of Concerned Scientists, Dec. 2013, www.ucsusa.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.

This secondary source was created by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a reliable

unbiased organization. It provided me with extremely detailed information about the

formation of superweeds in GE fields as well as the causes and potential solutions. It was

crucial to my first argument.

Monsanto Sales Representatives and Agronomists Prepared to Address Grower Concerns about

Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed. Monsanto, 22 Dec. 2006, news.monsanto.com.

Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This primary source was directly from the Monsanto Company

website. I wanted to describe their response to the superweed problem by citing one of

their press releases at the time the issue arose and this source provided me with that

perspective.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops:

Experiences and Prospects. National Academies Press, 2016. This secondary source is

highly reliable as it was published by the National Academies of Sciences, a completely

impartial group. I was able to pull trustworthy statistics and facts from the book and

incorporate them into my second argument.

Nielson, Robert. "Minimizing Pollen Drift & Commingling of GMO and Non-GMO Corn

Grain."
 Corny News Network, www.agry.purdue.edu. Accessed 14 May 2017. This secondary

source helped me discover a solution for the loss of biodiversity. It describes how to

prevent cross-pollination.

Preserving Seed Diversity. Food Security, Calumet Quarter, foodsecurity.uchicago.edu.

Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This secondary source had valuable information on the loss of

seed diversity due to GE crops. I used it for my third argument about biodiversity and it

helped me describe why seeds are becoming less diverse.

Rangel, Gabriel. From Corgis to Corn: A Brief Look at the Long History of GMO Technology.

Science in the News, Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Aug.

2015, sitn.hms.harvard.edu. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This secondary source is reliable as it

is published by Harvard University. It provided an extremely detailed history of GMOs

and gave me some much needed background information. I was able to gain a better

understanding of my topic after reading this source.

Roseboro, Ken. The GMO Seed Cartel. The Organic and Non-GMO Report, edited by Ken

Roseboro, 1 Feb. 2013, non-gmoreport.com. Accessed 12 Feb. 2017. This secondary

source is opinionated but has some good information about my topic. It describes the

monopoly over the seed industry in great deal and gives me background information on

the situation.

United States, Congress, House, Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Subcommittee

on Domestic Policy. Herbicide-Resistant Weeds in Genetically Engineered Crops.

Testimony of Micheal D.K. Owen Ph.D., Professor of Agronomy, Iowa State University,

Government Printing Office, 2010. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

 Medicine, nationalacademies.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This source provided me with

an abundance of scientific facts and statistics that I used for my first argument. The

informer is a professor of Agronomy and he is speaking in front of a congressional

committee, meaning the source is highly reliable.

"The Benefits of Crop Rotation." Knowledge Spotlight, www.sandsofiowa.com. Accessed 14

May 2017. This secondary source gave me in depth information about crop rotation. It

listed the benefits and fallbacks very clearly.

---, Federal Circuit Court. Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. Du Pont

de Nemours and Company and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.

www.americanbar.org. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This primary source offered a look at the

conflict between Monsanto and DuPont, two of the leading biotech companies in the seed

industry. The ruling only added more to Monsantos power adding to my argument that it

has a monopoly.

---, Supreme Court. Monsanto v. Bowman. www.supremecourt.gov. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This

primary source is the ruling of the Supreme Court on the case of Monsanto v Bowman, a

farmer who unwittingly violated the companys patent laws costing him thousands in a

lawsuit. It created the precedent that gave Monsantos patents more power and I used the

source in the my second argument.

Wechsler, Seth J. Recent Trends in GE Adoption. United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 3 Nov. 2016,

www.ers.usda.gov. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017. This secondary source is reliable as it is

published by the United States Department of Agriculture. It has useful statistics about
the use of GE crops in the US that I used in my introduction paragraph as well as visuals

that helped me understand my topic.